Is trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( rising or falling in Rwanda?

Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.

Where does this Rwanda data come from?

The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score. Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) ( in Rwanda

Name: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) ( in Rwanda
Creator: World Bank
License: CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)

Rwanda: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) ( was 82.7 in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)

82.7

Change on year

unchanged

World rank

113th

of 188 countries

All-time high

82.7

in 2014

All-time low

82.7

in 2014

Years of data

2014–2019

Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) ( in Rwanda, 2014–2019

Source: World Bank.

Analysis

The most recent figure for trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( in Rwanda is 82.7, measured in 2019. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.

The figure is unchanged over ten years.

That places Rwanda 113th out of 188 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the middle of the range.

Countries ranked near Rwanda

110 Argentina 82.86 compare
110 Cambodia 82.86 compare
110 Kiribati 82.86 compare
114 Oman 82.29 compare
115 Cape Verde 82.14 compare
116 Pakistan 81.43 compare
116 Bahrain 81.43 compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for Rwanda

Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.2282 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 0.9517 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 1.38 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.1223 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 1.38 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.7651 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 0.9517 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 4.27 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 6.98 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.666 (2050)

All data for Rwanda →

Frequently asked questions

What is trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( in Rwanda?: Trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( in Rwanda was 82.7 in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( recorded in Rwanda?: The highest recorded value was 82.7 in 2014.
What is the lowest trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( recorded in Rwanda?: The lowest recorded value was 82.7 in 2014.
How does Rwanda rank for trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) (?: Rwanda ranks 113th out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
Is trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( rising or falling in Rwanda?: Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Rwanda data come from?: The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score. Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Download this data

CSV · JSON — 6 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).

About this data

Indicator: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score
Source: World Bank
Licence: CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage: 190 places, 1,139 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed: 10 August 2026

The score for the cost for documentary compliance to import benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.